Against 200 Evangelical Leaders

200 Evangelical Leaders Sign Letter to President Trump on Israel’s Sovereignty Over Judea, Samaria
CBN News | 1 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GB5pkxzQSc

[My answer to them]

If Judea and Samaria are Biblical Israel, I suppose Palestinians are Biblical Israelites.

The problem with the two state solution is that Muslim Israelites and Talmudic Israelites divide sovereignty over Christian Israelites.

I've proposed a three state solution, internal sovereignty for each major religion of Israelites.

No, Meira K, Israel Doesn't Have the Green Light!

Israel Has The Green Light, Greta Thunberg Will Learn A Lesson She Won’t Forget!
Meira K | 2 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9gqWDpGX_Q

If a blockade is 3:48 declared and recognized as legal under 3:50 international law, meaning it is 3:51 publicly declared effective and 3:52 non-discriminatory, then vessels can 3:54 attempt that attempt to breach it can 3:55 legally be intercepted.

Did you note "declared and recognised" ... doesn't mean unilaterally by Israel.

Where are states saying it is legal (apart from Israel)? Where is UNO doing so?

4:10 Not just "a government" declaring the blockade, you also need other governments recognising it as legal.

I scrolled the transscript.

2011 Palmer report. Well, that was a report, not a UNO decision, right?

It was in 2011, since then it seems that evidence has come out that in fact the blockade is starving Gazawis.

And you forget that even legal blockades have no right to intercept humanitarian aid.

Here is some news on the 2011 Palmer report:

15.09.2011 UN independent panel rejects Palmer report (iHH)
https://ihh.org.tr/en/news/un-independent-panel-rejects-palmer-report-1118

Prepared by former New Zealand Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer and former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and presented to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Sept. 2, the UN panel's report on the 2010 Israeli attack on Mavi Marmara labeled the Israeli raid as “excessive and unreasonable,” but also claimed that due to Israel's security concerns, its blockade of Gaza is legal. The UN panel also blamed Turkey and flotilla organizers for contributing to the deaths.

So, this is the background, now, there is another independent UN panel:

The human rights experts said the blockade had subjected Gazans to collective punishment in "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law."

The four-year blockade deprived 1.6 million Palestinians living in the enclave of fundamental rights, they said.

"In pronouncing itself on the legality of the naval blockade, the Palmer Report does not recognize the naval blockade as an integral part of Israel's closure policy towards Gaza which has a disproportionate impact on the human rights of civilians," they said in a joint statement.

[back to citing video]

Okay. [in?] 2011 the 5:27 UN say [said?] this blockade is totally 5:28 legitimate.

No, the Palmer report is NOT the UN. It was handed in to Ban Ki Moon. I have no news Ban Ki Moon or the then security council voted to actually state the blockade was legitimate.

7:36 It's discriminating against the rights of Gazans or Gazawis to get food.

8:11 Gaza Humanitarian Foundation?

Right .... where Gazawis trying to collect the aid actually get shot.

In other words, a humanitarian corridor, like what the flotilla is trying to get gone, would be a highly welcome and necessary supplement to what Israel is letting in.

In other words, the only way in which the blockade is not trying to starve Gazawis and by and large succeeding is, to deny facts.

because we've 8:34 decided that they're discriminating 8:36 against the Palestinians even though 8:38 international law has not recognized 8:40 that

Well, the recognition could be upcoming.

The definition of a legal blockade is not that it is declared and not recognised illegal, but that it's declared and recognised legal. The Palmer report contradicted by the Falk report is not a formal recognition of the legality of the blockade.

9:17 Robbing a store is not just illegal, but immoral.

However, breaking a blockade that's not defined as legal and has many reasons to be regarded as illegal, that's not illegal, and not immoral, if the things brought are humanitarian aid.

9:28 The reason they are afraid of their lives is MV Mavi Marmara, 2010.

Passengers on the ship actively attempted to thwart a landing on the ship by Israeli commandos. In the violent clash that followed, nine activists were killed, according to the U.N. Report,[22] and a tenth died four years later of his wounds.[23] Several dozen activists were claimed to be injured, some seriously. Israel claimed 10 of its soldiers were injured, one seriously.[24]

The U.N. report stated that knives from the ship's kitchens (plus one traditional, ceremonial knife), some catapults (slingshots) and metal pipes the passengers cut from the ship's railings were found.

The UN report by Palmer (the one presumably meant) certainly stated that while the blockade was legal, the action by IDF was excessive. Meanwhile, there is no resolution stating the blockade is legal.

A report and a resolution are two different things.

A resolution means UN recognises or condemns a thing. A report means an expert employed or accepted by the UN suggests a recognition or condemnation of sth.

I cannot find any resolution to recognise the report of Palmer as founded. More like, there was simply no resolution to condemn the blockade as unfounded, and that could change.

[Apparently, it did change, in 2023, the legality of the blockade is specifically NOT recognised as to Freedom Flotilla]

https://youtu.be/dc3mQMlCECA?si=gdtJ1lYEMW8kQMlu&t=259

Sometimes People Are Judged Wrongly (Including When They Lose One)

WHERE HAVE I BEEN?
Hayley Alexis | 2 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KpxejmBalM

Sungenis is a Great Apologist ... Except He Relies Too Much on Physics

I added two sections before the one I made the title from, after I already published.

Councils, Virgin Birth, Yahweh, and Geocentrism | Robert Sungenis Live
Robert Sungenis | 1.X.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnMiahMbNWs

57:05 I would say, it's sufficient if the Church Father is prior to an obvious and still relevant split in the Church.

Why? In Matthew 28:20 we know the true Church is not defectible. So whatever was before a major split has to be the real Church, and therefore a consensus within that has to reflect the real teaching of Christ.

When it comes to how distant we are from the Apostles, we are far less than an order of magnitude further away than St. John of Damascus was. But we are more than an order of magnitude further away than St. Ignatius of Antioch was. Now, not only the Apostolic fathers (including Ignatius but not Irenaeus), but also Church Fathers (up to St. John of Damascus) are taken into account.

While recent Apologetics has taken advantage from Apostolic Fathers knowing people who had known Jesus, the rule of faith as per Trent, Leo XIII and Vatican I make the consensus of Church Fathers operative. In a sense, a consensus of CCFF automatically includes a consensus of Apostolic Fathers, but AAFF may not have mentioned the subject, since we have far less text by them than by CCFF in general.

59:35 No, they do not have to be in consensus to be authoritative. They have to be in consensus to be collectively infallible. Authoritative is less than infallible.

I disagree with Michael Lofton that Consensus of CCFF doesn't equal magisterium, unless it simply means "strict limitation of what is obligatory and what isn't" because they will express the same thing differently, and it may be hard to from CCFF alone see where the agreement is strictly obliging and where it is only recommended.

But I agree with him, even when they disagree, even when they cannot be all of them infallible, each is an authority (only applies to canonised CCFF, Tertullian is not one of them).

59:57 "for us to consider, that what they taught was taught by the Apostles"

OK, that's where we are no longer speaking of just authoritative, but infallible.

Each CF makes it to some degree probable that what he taught was taught by the Apostles, but only all CCFF together (if they spoke on a certain point) makes it certain.

1:00:39 If I check the martyrology:

2 May Alexandriae natalis sancti Athanasii, ejusdem urbis Episcopi, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, sanctitate et doctrina clarissimi; in cujus persecutionem universus fere Orbis conjuraverat. Ipse tamen catholicam fidem, a tempore Constantini usque ad Valentem, adversus Imperatores ac Praesides et innumeros Episcopos Arianos strenue propugnavit; a quibus plurimas perpessus insidias, profugus toto Orbe actus est, nec ullus ei tutus ad latendum supererat locus. Tandem, ad suam Ecclesiam reversus, illic, post multos agones multasque patientiae coronas, quadragesimo sexto sui sacerdotii anno migravit ad Dominum, tempore Valentiniani et Valentis Imperatorum.

28 Aug. Hippone Regio, in Africa, natalis sancti Augustini Episcopi, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris eximii, qui, beati Ambrosii Episcopi opera ad catholicam fidem conversus et baptizatus, eam adversus Manichaeos aliosque haereticos acerrimus propugnator defendit, multisque aliis pro Ecclesia Dei perfunctus laboribus, ad praemia migravit in caelum. Ejus reliquiae, primo de sua civitate propter barbaros in Sardiniam advectae, et postea a Rege Longobardorum Luitprando Papiam translatae, ibi honorifice conditae sunt.

27 March Sancti Joannis Damasceni, Presbyteri, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, cujus dies natalis agitur pridie Nonas Maji.

7 Dec (after Vigil of Immaculate Conception) Sancti Ambrosii Episcopi, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, qui pridie Nonas Aprilis obdormivit in Domino, sed hac die potissimum colitur, qua Mediolanensem Ecclesiam gubernandam suscepit.

12 March Romae sancti Gregorii Primi, Papae, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris eximii; qui, ob res praeclare gestas atque Anglos ad Christi fidem conversos, Magnus est dictus et Anglorum Apostolus appellatus.

In other words, the CCFF do not end in pre-Constantinian times.

1:02:18 While St. Justin was a premillennialist, he mentioned the position of St. Augustine as held by some, which he didn't condemn.

1:04:20 St. Augustine, however didn't believe that. [angelic theory on Genesis 6]

1:05:27 We can kind of test the probability of St. Paul (and St. Jude) holding to the Angelic theory about Genesis 6.

The test may not be conclusive to all, but has some probability. What did Jews at the time believe?

Now, Josephus didn't accept Christ (except some say he did just before he died), but he was close enough to people before the rejection of Christ to have some view on the uncorrupted Hebrew tradition, and here is what he says in book 1:

Chapter 3. 1. Now this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations: but in process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their fore-fathers; and did neither pay those honours to God which were appointed them, nor had they any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shewn for virtue, they now shewed by their actions a double degree of wickedness. Whereby they made God to be their enemy. For many Angels of God (14) accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good; on account of the confidence they had in their own strength. For the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call Giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did: and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions, and their actions for the better. But seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married. So he departed out of that land.

---

1:11:46 Lots of the errors of Russia are also errors of the US or UK.

Holodomor wasn't spread around the world, but has its parallel in the manmade and strictly Capitalist Potato Famine (a Capitalistic behaviour condemned in Rerum Novarum). The Irish wouldn't have died if their landlords had allowed them to eat the wheat they had themselves with own hands grown, but no, wheat was outside contractual obligation, and the landlord wanted business as usual selling wheat in Belfast or Glasgow or London.

Lots of psychiatry and power to it, common theme between US (up to Cuckoo's Nest, and beyond) and USSR. Banning marriage of girls who are minors, even if they are past puberty ... happened in 1917 or the ensuing years in Russia, happened in many, not all, states of US around the same time.

To answer the question why such things are called "errors of Russia" and not "errors of Russia and United States" ... in the United States, there has been resistance to them. I mentioned the film with Jack Nicholson, and young marriages still happen in the US, even if Puritans frown on them.

1:13:28 What has Rasputin to do with Communism?

Probably the guys who opposed Rasputin* have more to do with Communism. Rasputin may have discredited the Czar to the Bourgeoisie and the more Masonic of the Boyars, but not to the people. However, when the people actually did support Communism, it was partly because of the War (which Germany had won on the East Front), partly under people agreeing with the guys who thought Rasputin was a shame. And not for the reason mentioned by some Beta Israel band, from Germany who should have stuck to Brown Girl in a Ring or Psalm 137.

[Tried to add:]

In fact, as WW I was Caesar opposing Caesar, katekhon opposing katekhon and indirectly taking each other out of the way, Rasputin by trying to get a peace could have saved Russia from the Revolution:

He might (might!) have been trying to convince the government via the Tsarina a few months before his death to negotiate an armistice with the Central Powers, but as long as Nikki was the Tsar, there was no chance for Rasputin -or anybody else- to make him seek terms with his cousin Willy.

---

* I was right.

Historian Oleg Platonov was intrigued by the fact of a well thought-out slander campaign against Rasputin. It was launched in 1910, as if at the wave of a wand by some unseen manipulator - simultaneously and in most of the press. ...

"…I came across the book by Nina Berberova People and Lodges (Russian masons of the 20th century), based on archive materials and written testimonies of members of the Masonic organization. From the materials presented in the book, it follows that all people down on my list were masons."

The Byzantine Forum: Who was Rasputin?
answer by Mike L. from 3/11/10 07:06 PM (#3450680)
https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/345054/who-was-rasputin

---

1:29:30 "so they have the background they need to figure out these things"

As a non-physicist, I would say most people who presume only physical factors (masses, vectors, inertia, graviation ... possibly gyroscope effects) are relevant for movements on the scale of celestial bodies conclude from that in favour of Heliocentrism.

If we assume God or angels or both are also involved, we don't need to get deep into physics to see how Geocentrism is perfectly possible. Epistemically, it's preferrable.

I know what it's like to sit in front of a library, and watch cars go by. I did it while writing a letter on the topic. I see the cars as if they are moving, and also conclude it's the cars, not I, which are moving.
I know what it's like to sit in a train and watch landscape go by. I had done so while getting to that library. I see a train platform as if moving, and I conclude the train I'm in is moving.

These two phenomena are not equal in frequency. If I feel myself moving as in walking or biking, that automatically corrects the impression, I don't even register the possibility of a house being what moves, that feeling automatically corrects the visual impression. So, it's on this earth only when I sit still in a moving vehicle that I see things move and conclude I'm the one that's moving. Even apart from frequency, the inversion of movement in analysis compared to impression, that's an extra assumption. Occam says not to multiply assumptions beyond the necessary.

In other words, when I see the train platform move, I conclude I'm the one moving because I know train platforms are grounded in earth and trains have wheels, because I know the same train but two different platforms means different streets outside the train station and quite a few more things that are ultra obvious, but which nevertheless are true and could need mentioning in a context like this one.

If I take your approach, God set up a system where the universe by rotating makes the place of the Earth the centre and keeps Earth non-rotating by a gyroscope effect, I am accepting a watchmaker analogy, and am basically going for the God of Voltaire.

If on the other hand I take the approach of St. Thomas, God set up a system which He rotates around Earth each day, where individual celestial bodies are moved by angels, where "parallax" isn't an actual parallax, but a flourish by an angelic mover, just as St. Thomas thought about retrogrades, I am more like accepting Geocentrism as a proof of God having inexhaustible power and showing it off visibly since creation. The Horsehead nebula hasn't been visible to human observers since Creation. Betelgeuse being as star only bigger than the Solar system (still not visible, but concluded, usually by Heliocentrics) hasn't been visible to human observers since Creation. The flagellum of the bacterium hasn't been visible to human observers since Creation. None of these three things were visible or concluded by the time St. Paul wrote Romans 1. And St. Paul didn't consider one needed Newton's or Einstein's physics to understand the visible proofs of God either.

"Creation is beautiful, so it takes a Creator with a sense of beauty"
"Man has a mind, but is non-eternal, so needs to be based on eternal mind"
"The Universe turns around Earth each day, and stars and planets don't collide and put everything in disorder, so enormous and inexhaustible power is linked to wisdom"

When I go with St. Thomas and Aristotle, I go with St. Paul. I think the last of these is, as argument equally strong, but as observation more obvious, than the second. As to the first, by itself, it would be compatible with Polytheism "the gods who run this earth have a sense of beauty" ... and it's perhaps even compatible with Cthulhu "the gods in outer space have no sense of beauty" ...

So, St. Paul is the ultimate endorsement of Aristotle (with many reservations) and of St. Thomas (with quite a lot fewer ones). As far as we mean endorsements from authority. He has however been pretended to have been anti-Aristotelian. Here:

Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ
[Colossians 2:8]

No, "elements" doesn't refer to the "four elements" of Aristotle. It refers to a concept in Democritus and Epicure, to us better known as "atoms" ... and Epicure was a Geocentric, but considered the causes of the Geocentrism we observe were in the present and the ongoing purely mechanistic. Tradition says Colossians 2:8 attacks Epicure. Karl Marx (before he apostasised) came up with "no, it's Aristotle" ... I obviously prefer tradition over Karl Marx.

Heschmeyer is a Great Apologist. Horn too. Me Three. (As Long As I Do It Writing, Not Speaking)

I Was Wrong (Worse: Trent Horn was Right ...)
Shameless Popery | 2 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI3Mt6UPRok

6:37 All that this argument requires is:

• Mary was not in a state of sin (like original or mortal), so, covenantally, God would not have been free to damn Her (irrespectively of whether the state of grace or only legal justification was available back in the OT);
• God wasn't threatening to damn Her if She refused (which obviously He wasn't).

Alternatively, people in the OT weren't acutely aware of a risk of damnation (while obviously no one was puzzled when Jesus spoke out on people getting damned, so the concept was around, they were puzzled about the things He applied this to, like inner lust, like stinginess to the needing, like being angry or hateful enough to someone to go from "good for nothing" — the probable meaning of racah — to "fool" in the personal assessment of the other person). They were basically in favour of a Hillel like laxism, and He was on some essentials presenting a Shammai + like severity. I don't think even the school of Shammai was all that much into the risk of getting damned. OT Jews, including just before Jesus, would have thought of hell as a place where people go if they were Hitler and didn't remain a painter or ate pork knowingly under no duress from Antiochus IV.

9:04 Ah, Mary's consciousness parallelling Isaias seems to be a better argument.

Without sinlessness, Mary wouldn't have dared.

Now, I actually hold, She wasn't aware of Her sinlessness before She got from the words of Elisabeth Cohen that Her own Sisera was the old serpent. Nevertheless, awareness of sinlessness would not have been needed, only not having a fault to be keenly aware of, as Isaias had.

10:53 definitely not AI

I feel like double-checking that with Trent Horn. The sentiment in general, abstracting from the application to two persons, however is a reminder, I do best to argue and debate over the internet, in a room my presence is grossly inadequate, even for just a school teacher on a not controversial subject like German grammar. (OK, it became controversial because of me).

My Eclectic Favourite Moments in (Italian) Fascism Defended

Giovanni Gentile Articulates Fascism
Lotuseaters Dot Com | 3 Oct. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpimaIjoBo

2:35 It can be mentioned that José Antonio Primo de Rivera polemised against Rousseau.

3:46 Here you would find a very heavy opposition of Charles Maurras to Gentile.

Some would obviously count Maurras and Franco as both being outside Fascism proper, but common usage in Spain considers Franco and José Antonio as Fascists, common usage in France does it for Maurras and Pétain (both of whom lose points in my reckoning for collaboration with Hitler -- pretty much from 1942, not all of their activity).

To Maurras, France was eminently the work of Merovingians, Carolingians and above all of Robertides (because they only ruled West Francia, which is basically France, and not Mid-Francia which includes Switzerland, BeNeLux and N. Italy, and not East Francia which is essentially Germany and Austria). Robertides, a k a Capet, Valois, Bourbon, Bourbon-Orléans (Maurras being an Orléaniste).

Does that bely that Maurras was Corporatist? No. Or that José Antonio, also Corporatist, was a bit more Syndicalist? No.

4:21 Pétain and José Antonio as well as Franco obviously disagreed with him. They thought Catholic Christianity is above the state.

So did very obviously Pius XI ... who on other accounts (like corporatism) was not an outspoken enemy of Mussolini.

7:18 What you just said about syndicates and corporations has basically been copied in seminal principles by Swedish Social Democrats.

Via the Swedish Fascists known as Nysvenskar, who also admired Perón.

As Nysvenskar weren't getting into power on their own, they kind of "infiltrated" Social Democracy and brought it, economically closer to Fascism.

When it comes to things Sweden would have done like Norway against the Bodnarius, that's Marxism with a Woke strain, and was basically alien to Franco, José Antonio, even Mussolini.

8:20 Translation of what you just said.

If you like making gelato, you are one of a certain type of small businesses. If you like making cars, you are probably in the bigger business of Fiat. Either way you are in a Syndicate at least theoretically meant to make sure you have a voice, and the syndicate is there for anyone in the same line of business, either mom and pop shop or factory owner or factory employee or salesman ... and because both Fiat and the gelato stand, both the owner and the last employee of Fiat are in Italy, these Syndicates are regulated by the Italian state and also help to elect the Italian government. Chamber of Corporations complementing the Chamber of the Regions.

The Medieval system was not all that different, except Belloc voted not simply as part of Brewer's Guild, but more specifically of Brewer's Guild of London. Before some election reforms, obviously.

8:22 No, the Fascists clearly refuse to view you as part of a class, like distinction of the Fiat factory owner and the Fiat employee, and instead views you as part of a certain type of producer, like in both these cases car producers.

Similarily, if you have a gelato stand in a village 20 km outside Naples or if you make gelato you sell to fancy restaurants, you are different classes, since one is poor, one is rich, but same type of producers, namely Gelato makers.

Class is a horizontal division, those above and those below certain divides of income and good things of life and of society, type of producers is a vertical division, and different socio-economic outcomes inside it are partially equalised, because they are the same class of producers. The Fiat factory should not just examplify good cars, it should also examplify a solidarity between the Fiat factory worker and the Fiat factory owner.

Some corporations do in fact exist in modern liberal democracies as well, like for Medical personnel and for Lawyers. Whether you are an overworked provincial doctor or chief doctor of a prestigious hospital, you are "in the same boat" as Medical Association of your country. This guild socialism is found very compatible with human dignity and with freedoms if the ones enjoying or enduring it are doctors of medicine, but for some reason an effacement of individual personality if the ones enjoying or enduring it are at different ends of the Fiat hierarchy for car producers, or at different scales of economic prosperity for Gelato stands.

Obviously, Fascism does think of man as a producer, but does not deny he is also a consumer and for instance pretty often a family man. A gelato maker in Milan and one 20 km outside Naples would vote for the same set of people in the Chamber of Corporations, since they are the same kind of producers. But as a family man, a gelato maker in Milan and a Fiat worker in Milan would vote for the same set of representatives in the Regional Chamber as voting in the voting district(s?) of Milan.

8:57 no "the same category" in Gentile means type of producer.

Class means type of income and power in society.

Maurras and before him de La Tour du Pin criticised the concept of class warfare and substituted solidarity within he category of producers.

In the Three Estates, nobility with Feudal duties and rights were a same category of defenders (not exactly producers) whether they were relatively poor people like Henri de La Rochejaquelein or Lafayette or relatively rich people like Louis-Antoine de Bourbon-Condé, Duc d'Enghien, and similarily Catholic clergy were the same category of priests, whether they were relatively poor people like the Curate of Ars or relatively rich ones like Bossuet.

Very different from English House of Lords where lords secular and lords clerical are mingled, but all have to be above a certain level. A simple priest or a simple Esquire won't do.

9:13 That's a bogus analysis.

You can imagine a National Socialism where promotion of the proletariate class ends with the nation's frontiers. Both Beneš and Rudolf Jung were into such movements, the latter one in a party that over namechanges incorporated a man who should have remained a painter but it's still a horizontal division, proletarians are exalted because of a certain class that's seen as exploited, and needs "affirmative action" against employers and other people who could have exposed them to unfair deals.

However, the Corporazioni are vertical divisions, a Fiat worker and a Fiat boss are in the same corporazione, because both produce cars. The proletarian is also exalted, but it's because those who are more favoured than he are reminded (gently or sometimes not so gently) what they have in common as car producers. The corporation of car producers, typically stratified by (to Fascism largely irrelevant) classes of income is perfectly equal to the corporation of Gelato makers, who typically owning small shops or even stands are less stratified between them.

This is very different from Socialism. (Swedish Social Democracy only partially adopted the idea, LO is still a distinct umbrella organisation from SAF, blue collar workers from employers, rather than people from each sharing umbrella organisations from type of production).

9:22 Fascism doesn't divide Bourgeoisie from Proletariat. It divides Militaries from Priests and Educators, and both from Producers, and divides Car Producers from Ice Cream producers (who obviously produce gelato and not British ice cream).

9:28 No, Fascism is not against all of the other nations, in principle.

Italian Fascism (the namegiver) could in principle be against another nation that had territory that Italian Nationalists thought should belong to Italy. And in the outcome, they came to be against lots of other nations by allying with a man who should have remained a painter.

But the enemy is more basically class warfare as a species of incivility and of chaos, harming both production and peaceful enjoyment of life and ideally, Fascism is against class warfare from either side.

Chesterton did an interview with Mussolini, and got the impression that yes, Black Shirts did help employers to end attempts of expropriation and to end strikes, but only if said employers agreed to decent minimum wages and maximum hours.

9:43 Italian Fascism may at times have bought into the Darwinian struggle of primacy between nations, but when Mussolini was on a state visit to a man who should have remained a painter they spoke about an equitable order of harmony between nations.

For José Antonio and even Franco with his former dreams of becoming a Spanish Navy officer dashed by Spain losing Cuba, Guam and Philippines, this idea is absent.

And the same observation can be made for Juan Perón whom the Swedish Fascists basically made a honorary Fascist.

10:32 Mussolini in a famous speech conceived he could himself be a traitor.

"If I lead you, follow me, if I command you, obey me, if I betray you ... kill me."

Some would take the Salò Republic as a treason on his part and consider the partisans who hung him were taking him at his word.

10:53 While we are at reeducation, there is a huge difference between Nazi camps like Oranienburg taking care of someone until he has become a productive man, or died in their attempts to make him such, and Italian castor oil cures, until someone threw down the red flag and shouted Viva Italia.

I hope the latter didn't continue all that long past 1924. Oranienburg manners unfortunately did in the German example. Didn't come too close to Italy as long as Mussolini was the PM of an actual monarch.

Young Marriages

He Says Child Marriages Should Be Brought Back!?! | Daniel Haqiqatjou
Kim Iversen | 23 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMc9uW0AUxo

I) Some facts of biology.

Puberty for both sexes can be gone through by age 9 or by age 18. About 5 % each direction.

90 % of girls go through puberty while ages 11, 12, 13.
90 % of boys while ages 13, 14, 15.

The medium age is 12 years and some months (3 months?) for girls, and somewhat about 14 for boys.

II) A fact of medicine.

Courtesy of my mother's memory of her professor in gynaecology (that professor was an Orthodox Jew, if you want to detect bias, he was still professor of gynaecology at the Med school of the University of Vienna). Filtered by my own memory.

A first child birth is safest between ages 17 and 25.

B U T ... a first child birth is safer at 13 than at 30. Why? The elasticity of the hips prior to full pre-birth width counts for more than the width, and the hips stiffen by 30, so, an old maid getting her first child at 30 has hips that are still somewhat too narrow, but on top of that way too stiff.

I have since heard that the statistics of danger are by now inversed, but that's mainly because countries with late first childbirth are also countries with good medical systems and countries with early first childbirth also are poorer countries with worse medical systems. If we took medical care out of the equation, 13 would still be safer than 30.

III) Fact of canon law.

12 years old for girls, 14 for boys.

Note, has been hightened to 14 for girls and 16 for boys around 1917. But at the same time, the infamy by infamy of law for engaging in sexual activity with any being under an age is still after 1917 too, set at 14 / 12.

IV) Fact of older Christian-Muslim polemics.

I see Christians like St. Thomas taking issue with polygamy (including of Mohammed), but not with the age of Aisha.

In fact, I see some very rare cases in which European nobility, insofar as the birth and marriage years are correct, have imitated Muslims in having girls juridically marry at age 9. Obviously before the Renaissance, a time when the Catholic Church starts taking the 14 / 12 limit more seriously. A Polish noble got an angry letter from the Pope for allowing his daughter to marry:

• before she was 11 and 1/2
• without dispensation from the Pope
• to a non-Catholic (a Protestant).

I think the limit was introduced after John Lackland married off his daughter to a Scottish king when she was just 11 and the marriage was a disaster.

Joan of England (22 July 1210 – 4 March 1238), was Queen of Alba (Scotland) from 1221 until her death as the wife of Alexander II.

V) Fact about social non-acceptance. Of minor (but not pre-puberty) marriages.

Dates from about 100 years ago, from what is termed the Progressive Era. Also saw the implementation of Eugenics before Hitler and Nordic Social Democrats latched on to it.

VI) Fact about girls these days.

I was the teacher of a ninth grade girl who had been through abortion at age 13. Probably more common in the country-side, like where I was a teacher, than in big cities or especially posh parts of them, like Videdal where I was a pupil, but still.

If she had been legally able to marry the father, perhaps she wouldn't have aborted, and perhaps would have been a happier girl.

VII) Facts on percentages.

"Quel âge aviez-vous la première fois que vous avez eu un rapport sexuel complet ?"
https://fr.statista.com/statistiques/528232/jeunes-premier-rapport-sexuel-france-par-age/

10% younger than 15.
12% 15
18% 16
24% 17
17 % 18
8% 19
10% 20 or older
1% did not comment

The statistics are from 16 Oct. 2013.

No, Señor Rosas, First Cousin Marriage Has Been Legal for Centuries in the UK

I am obviously not advocating for Catholics starting First Cousin marriages, just for not over demonising them from a medical point of view in Protestants, Jews and Muslims.

And obviously for not pretending such marriages in the first generations after the Flood or first but the very first generations after Adam would have doomed us.

The UK pushes COUSIN MARRIAGES as 'NET POSITIVE'!
The Body Language Guy | 29 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLrbIygReZo

1:05 It so happens, first cousin marriages are legal in the UK, and this is part of a debate on banning them. Not of legalising, that was already done, because First Cousin marriages are OK in the Torah, the NT actual text doesn't specify any more, and at a certain point, England or Scotland or both, being Protestant, legalised First Cousin marriage, which had been banned according to Catholic Canon law prior to the Reformation.

Here is an excerpt on genetic risks, they depend also on population:

The risk of having a baby with birth defects – usually heart or nervous system problems which can sometimes be fatal – is still small, but it rises from 3% in the general Pakistani population to 6% among those married to blood relatives. The researchers also found a doubling of the risk in the babies of white British women who were over the age of 34. That increased risk, rising from 2% to 4%, is already known.

So, British women have a risk of 2 % and Pakistanis a risk of 3 % for birth defects. First Cousin marriage doubles 3 to 6 %, woman waiting to 34 or more doubles 2 to 4 %.

Speaking of 30 % is ridiculous. I know of Carlos II, but he was the umpteenth generation since about the Renaissance of Habsburgs marrying First Cousins and Nieces.

2:13 You are basically saying that England went "full retard" in the 1660's.

From a reddit thread, acknowledging that prior to the Reformation, First Cousin marriages were illegal, but the Pope could dispense:

European aristocrats also historically favored it for the way that it helped keep property under the control of one family, as well as the fact that both spouses would be well-known to each other and to their immediate families, and they would also have had the means to get dispensations with ease. In general, you don't have to worry that your daughter's suitor comes from unsuitable origins if he's your brother's son, and he probably won't mistreat her. In England, however, the split from Rome meant that cousin marriages were impossible, as the pope was no longer an authority.* Cousin marriages were declared legal there in the 1660s, but it took some decades for people to really become comfortable with it.

Instead of having the Pope dispense in certain cases (a little too often with the Habsburgs), England and in parallel or a bit later Sweden and Denmark dispensed in all cases, aligning on the Torah.

The US isn't as anti-first-cousin marriage in law as it is in culture. It seems 25 states outright ban first cousin marriages and 7 more restrict them (like Arizona basically only allows it when the couple aren't expected to have children). 50 - 32 = 18 states allow first cousin marriages, including fertile ones, and place no special restrictions on them.

3:32 The poor people in Appalachia certainly have some degree of inbreeding, but they equally have a degree of late marriages, due to women finding marriage delayed by poverty.

Retarded usually comes from Down's, where the main factor is age of mother.

Billy Redden, from Duelling Banjos, apparently isn't retarded. He does have a condition on the eyes which makes him kind of "look the part"**

3:49 The irony is, she's from Singapore and isn't aware that with no Muslim minority worth mentioning, First Cousin marriages are legal*** in her own country:

Vietnam prohibits marriage out to second cousins.[121][122] First cousin marriage (but not second cousin marriage or first cousin once removed marriage) is also prohibited in the Philippines.[9][123]

However, first cousin marriage is allowed in most countries in Southeast Asia, including Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, and Thailand, even avunculate marriage (uncle/aunt-niece/nephew marriage) is allowed in Malaysia and Thailand.

Philippines = Spain. Vietnam = France. Catholic countries that ban First Cousin marriages.

[Banned, neither does today.]

4:07 It's not a change of science, it's a weighing of science (genetics) and science (sociology).

Some people have a hard time imagining that a hard science should not all by itself call the shots on morals and legislation from one particular point of view. That's why we saw vaxx and mask mandates recently.

4:48 Does Josh Ferme actually link to the 2002 study?

It's actually not 30 % of birth defects overall, but of autosomal recessive disorders.

Here is an actual° quote:

Consanguinity is relevant to UK health care as there are now large settler populations from South Asia, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa (Ahmad 1994; Bittles 2009; Hoodfar and Teebi 1996) who practice consanguineous marriages. The Pakistani/Kashmiri community1 is one of the largest ethnic groups in the UK (ONS 2011) and is highly consanguineous (Shaw 2009). Autosomal recessive disorders are also higher amongst this group (Taylor 2013b), with Pakistani babies accounting for 30 % of autosomal recessive disorders among all babies born in the UK, while accounting for only 4 % of total births (Modell and Darr 2002).

Now, let's get real about overall birth defects. Autosomal recessive is far from all of them.°

The cultural practice of consanguineous marriage (or cousin marriage) refers to marriage between close biological relatives and has been linked with an increase in genetic risk leading to stillbirths, infant deaths and genetic disorders (Bennett et al. 2002; Hamamy et al. 2011; Modell and Darr 2002). Evidence highlights a 2–3 % risk of genetic disorders in children of unrelated couples which goes up to 4–6 % in children of consanguineous couples and a strong association with rise in autosomal recessive disorders (Bennett et al. 2002; Darr et al. 2013; Hamamy et al. 2011; Shaw 2009).

So, the overall risk of a birth defect is twice normal, not 30 %. And old women also double the risk of birth defects. Down's syndrome is among the latter group, not the autosomal recessive group.

5:43 You are aware Christian Heiens is a US political analyst, perhaps less acquainted in detail with conditions in the UK?

6:19 I have nothing against the Habsburg Lotharingia dynasty.

I'd love to see a grandson of Charles the Last°° rule over Austria or Hungary or both, he was to Austria-Hungary what Nicolas II was to Russia, the one holding back. Taking them out of the way (there was only one Caesar in St. Paul's day) opened the road for Lenin and Bela Kun. (By the way, they haven't been big on cousin marriages since about Carlos II).

6:35 Neither England, nor New England. Charles Darwin married his first cousin Emma Wedgwood. Edgar Allan Poe married his first cousin Virginia Eliza Clemm (when she was 13, perfectly legal at the time, and probably all then states of the Union).

[tried to add:]

From the Spanish°°° wiki:

Únicamente Austria, Hungría, y España prohibieron los matrimonios entre primos durante el siglo XIX, sin embargo en los dos últimos países mencionados era posible solicitar dispensas de dicha prohibición y países como Suecia y Dinamarca buscan prohibirlo. Durante siglos el casamiento entre primos carnales fue bastante común en Europa, pero durante el siglo XIX esta práctica comenzó a caer en desuso cuando las personas y especialmente las mujeres comenzaron a tener mayor movilidad social. En 1875 George Darwin estimó que el matrimonio consanguíneo en Inglaterra representaba el 3,5 por ciento de los matrimonios en la clase media y el 4,5 por ciento de los matrimonios en la nobleza, aunque las cifras disminuyeron a valores inferiores al 1 por ciento durante el siglo XX. Un ejemplo destacado era el caso de la Reina Victoria y el Príncipe Alberto.#

Also states that the reports about the harmful effects on mental health are the fad of a Scotsman named Arthur Mitchell.

* My emphasis. ** Source:

Fundraiser for Billy Redden, Duelin’ Banjos banjo boy
Posted on March 5, 2024 by John Lawless
https://bluegrasstoday.com/fundraiser-for-billy-redden-duelin-banjos-banjo-boy/

*** Quoted source:
Cousin marriage : From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage

° Both quotes:
UK Pakistani views on the adverse health risks associated with consanguineous marriages
Mubasshir Ajaz, Nasreen Ali, Gurch Randhawa | J Community Genet. 2015 Feb 6;6(4):331–342
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4567984/

°° Officially Charles I. Nicknamed Charles the Last, not because he lacked children, but because he gave way to two Republics in his main thrones and a few more states and parts of state in other countries under him, usually Republics, but also the rival monarchy of Yugoslavia, formerly the dynasty of Serbia (with Montenegro).

°°° Casamiento entre primos
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casamiento_entre_primos

# In the XIXth C. only Austria, Hungary and Spain prohibited cousin marriage, however in the two latter countries it was possible to apply for exemption from the ban, and countries like Sweden and Denmark try to ban it [obvious redaction war, adding a counterexample from wrong century in the same sentence instead of adding a paragraph]. During centuries, cousin marriage was fairly common in Europe, but in the XIXth C. the practise began to fall into disuse as persons, especially women, began to have greater social mobility. In 1875, George Darwin estimated that in England consanguine marriages represented 3.5 % of marriages in the Middle Class and 4.5 of them in nobility, though the numbers decreased to less than 1 % during the XXth C. A prominent example was the case of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert.

Moral Unanimity of Church Fathers

How Much Authority Do the Church Fathers Really Have? | The Michael Lofton Show
Reason & Theology | 29 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/live/rxayz5Pde3c

14:59 You are aware EO adressed Protestantism in Jerusalem and Iasi?

18:52* More important: % of what total?

Of all Church Fathers, regardless of how little they wrote and that is preserved, even if they never touched the question? Or of all Church Fathers that spoke on the question?

Geocentrism and YEC will have a low % of all CCFF overall, but 100 % of all CCFF who spoke on the question. (David Palm dug up one CF who spoke about a Pagan philosopher "discovering" that the Earth goes around the Sun, the context is not Joshua 10, the context is Pagan philosophers, so I presume "discovered" could have been said tongue in cheek).

I would say, the former idea would make the criterium meaningless.

20:52 How we establish unanimity?

You establish unanimity among the ones you have read, and challenge the opponents to show dissenting voices among the CCFF.

David Palm was able to dig up that one CF who considered (in a very specific context) Heliocentrism as a "discovery" (of human reason? or of human reason perhaps gone wrong?)

22:23 If you pretend "heliocentrism" and "geocentrism" are a matter of "science" and therefore not of faith and morals, sorry, that's the error of non-overlapping magisteria.

It was coined by a modernist Jew, Stephen J. Gould, who held Torah only required morals and not faith.

It is also attributing to our forefathers in the faith a distinction which presupposes the concept we have of science, as an institution, which is anachronistic.

If you pretend they touch on no article of the faith or no major item in Christian philosophy, and therefore not of faith and morals, sorry again, by now heliocentrism / acentrism touches on "what is heaven" and therefore "sedet ad dexteram Patris" and "what is resurrection" and therefore on Lateran IV "resurgam eadem carne quam nunc gero" (eadem, not eiusmodi). By "distant starlight" it touches on age of the universe, which by now, after C14 dating (which wasn't available to Pius XII in 1951 or to Fr. Fulcran Vigouroux in 1909 or in the 1880's when he wrote his manual) touches on God's goodness to Adam and on Adam as universal progenitor.

The same is obviously true of other arguments in Old Earth / Young Earth.

It can be added that St. Paul in Romans 1 wasn't speaking of the flagellum of the bacterium, since it isn't visible to the naked human eye, and microscopes haven't been around since creation. He arguably was speaking precisely on God moving Heaven around us each day.

It can also be added that Nazi Catholics who endorsed Eugenics despite Casti Connubii reasoned that way "it isn't a matter of morals, but of science" ... Pius XI obviously condemned that position, and in 1937, Mit brennender Sorge was targetting that and other persecutions of the poor and marginalised, since Auschwitz wasn't around yet. Not all Nazi Catholics did, though, I hope Albanus Schachleiter who died in 1937 didn't, he did call out Nazism for going in too Protestant a direction (mainstream Protestant Churches had at the time a pretty complete endorsement of Eugenics).

22:34 You omitted the strongest Biblical argument apart from Romans 1.

Joshua 10:12.

Joshua first spoke to God, words not recorded, then adressed Sun and Moon. If it was instead of Sun and Moon only Earth that ceased rotating, it would be the only place in the Bible where a miracle worker adressed something other than what needed adressing.

If you speak of leprosy and "be clean" and "leprosy was cleansed", there are different aspects of cleansing. The man is cleansed pure and the leprosy is cleansed off**

18th or 19th C. German Protestant theologians have pretended "God accomodated to popular error" both in Joshua's long day and in the exorcism of demons.

Or, if you pretend the prayer is the words to Sun and Moon, sorry, but Sun and Moon are simply not names of God.

25:45 It may be remarked that the condemnations of Bishop Tempier of Paris in 1277 (or 1276 as they counted then) were never revoked, except if there was an indictment against St. Thomas as suspect for holding this, this indictment was revoked 48 years later. The syllabus part wasn't.

Now, this doesn't just concern Paris, but also French and English speaking colonies in N. America, because Louisiana and Québec (larger historic sense) were colonised with people speaking Paris French as it was back then, and I think it was bishop Arundel who in a council that was regional re-adopted the same condemnations for all of England.*** So, anything from Maine to Georgia would be bound by the syllabus of Tempier too.

While it doesn't condemn the proposition of there being no angelic movers, angelic movers were certainly on the table, and weren't condemned as such.

Meaning in French and English colonies, explaining retrogrades and the movements known as aberration, parallax and proper movement by angelic movers is licit.

27:27 I'm suspicious of the idea that Church Fathers collectively have less authority than the universal magisterium.

If anything, that would concern matters of formulation and establishing minimal agreements with the doctrine.

27:43 For their flock ... correct.

At that time only? No ... up to when a decision, if it ever is, is rescinded locally or superseded by higher authority. That's why a decision from 1277 is still applicable, except insofar as the original decision involved suspicions against the Angelic doctor.

However, if flock after flock is told the same thing era after era, and we find no or only superficial or only marginal exception, that is a moral unanimity reflecting the body of bishops in union with the pope, century after century. A third way, apart from Papal decisions and Ecumenic councils for Pope and Bishops to exercise their power.

28:05° Hippo is a decent standin for Carthage if we have no dissenting voice from Carthage.

Hippo is a decent sample of the Church Universal, if we have no dissenting voice from Carthage, Rome, Damascus, Seville, Jerusalem, centuries on centuries.

29:03 Access to all? Doesn't matter. In footage from a crime scene, it should matter, but in Patristics, it shouldn't.

If all Patristics we have access to is Young Earth Creationist (including those who aren't Six-Literal Days), we can't go "but an unknown Church Father might disagree" or "a Church Father known for writing only on the sacraments might have disagreed in a lost sermon on Genesis" ...

That approach would, precisely as a % of all CCFF approach, make the criterium from Trent meaningless

30:10°° Indeed, from St. Augustine the New Advent site omits "De Genesis ad litteram libri XII" and "Contra academicos" ...

34:28 If you think I have relied on a CF who is misattributed, go for it.

I think modern editions of City of God (on New Advent) or of De Genesi ad litteram libri XII (in Budé, with facing French translation) are suspect, I think you are streching it. I cite that for taking Genesis 5 and 11 (genealogy part) as literal chronology and for St. Augustine being Geocentric.

34:54 1) St. Athanasius' Quicumque vult was a Latin original, 2) the Greeks simply didn't have the First Council of Toledo and Pope St. Leo I promoting it 40 years later (from Toledo to Astorga).°°°

37:21# The vast majority except Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism (both of which were held by Council Fathers at Trent, neither of which was directly disputed in Providentissimus Deus — I checked, given the reception of that encyclical).

And obviously Christ is risen and the Mass is a Sacrifice.

---

* Michael Lofton was asking what percentage is moral unanimity. ** German has the useful distinction between "reingewaschen" and "abgewaschen" ... *** I copied the "English" version from an appendix of a book by David Piché, giving the original with French translations, mainly, and the Appendix started with Chapter VI of the English document:

Index in stephani tempier condempnationes
https://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/index-in-stephani-tempier.html

Collectio errorum in Anglia et Parisius Condempnatorum
https://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/collectio-errorum-in-anglia-et-parisius.html

qui sic per capitula distinguuntur

Capitulum VI

Isti articuli qui sequuntur, condempnatisunt a domino stephano parisiensi episcopo, de consilio magistrorum theologie, anno domini M °. CC °. LXXVI, die dominica qua contatur "Letare Ierusalem" in curia parisiensi, ubi excommunicauit in scriptis omnes illos qui scienter eos docuerint uel defenderint. Et primoordinantur qui sunt de deo ...

° Michael Lofton said a decision by St. Augustine of Hippo isn't magisterial today (basically, even in Hippo). I hedge that very severely in my comment. °° English is a drop in a bucket. °°° Resource here:

First Council of Toledo / Concilium Toletanum primum:
https://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_043t.htm

# Michael Lofton had stated, CCFF disagree on the vast majority of things.

"Another Epstein Situation" ... "Not Suicidal" (Peter Hager / Candace Owens)

Peter Hager reacts to Candace Owens' take on Tyler Robinson

Candace Owens: Tyler Robinson Is NOT Suic*dal
Revolutionary Change | 29 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saKzgKhco6Y

What really happened before Charlie Kirk stepped into the spotlight?

Finally, Remote Bomb on Charlie Kirk’s Mic Exposed. Shocking killer caught! Tyler Robinson innocent?
Detective Max | 29 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZgZtUdJtfA

Was Tolkien Any Good as a Philologist?

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: The Beowulf Poet Knew Homer · Other Characteristic of the Beowulf Poet: · The Monsters ARE The Critics · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: On Beowulf and Clergy · Was Tolkien Any Good as a Philologist?

Very arguably, yes:

Tolkien's Problem with Beowulf Translations
Graham Scheper | 23 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs0x14pgX2c

[hron-ráde: dolphin's riding or whale-road?]

Sharing on the Flotilla

Israel’s TERRIFYING Threat Against Flotilla - w./ David Adler
Owen Jones | 23 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/live/iSUnOvlRKv4

No, I'm NOT Trans

I might not have concluded Joe Heschmeyer was just perhaps trying to help me, if he hadn't on a previous occasion heavily apologised for not changing the shirt since previous video. Sth much closer at home to me. I am obviously less excited about citations of Karol Józef Wojtyła.

How I'd share Christianity with a trans person
Shameless Popery | 23 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08kxhbjZzig

Excuse me, but is anyone you know pretending I need to be kept silent about based on pretending I'm trans?

From my clothing items, I don't fit as a Disney Princess, but more like a Pirate of the Caribbean.

From my fan fic on Susan Pevensie, it would be very idiotic to take her (or my version of her) as a self insert. More like, the time I lost interest in carrying on coincides not too ill with when I found out Anna Popplewell was in couple with someone else.

Now, the communion of "Leo XIV" may take cues about me from the parishes "in full communion with Leo XIV" in Paris. However, these ones are pretty gullible to Gipsies. They are a victimised group, so we hear what they say, we don't question it is basically the idea. To give you an idea, the parish Notre Dame du Pentecôte printed a folder about Romanian Gipsies, it included the statement "the Kings of Romania held Gipsies in slavery up to 1856" ... it so happens, there were NO Kings of Romania, there were Voyevods of either Wallachia or Moldavia (bigger than today's Moldova, by far) who were vassals to Turkey. In the Crimea war, they were liberated from Turkey and united as a kingdom in precisely 1856. Perhaps it's safer for Romanian gipsies in the Paris region to blame a past institution over another one that Erdogan identifies with.

I've had Gipsies call me Jesus, as if they thought I was a madman who thought I was Jesus. If it's based on hair cut and beard, like John the Baptist and Hippies show, it's a cheap one.

Gipsies have a tendency to be under the thumb of social workers or doctors, and so, the real culprit behind them could be a shrink ... angry at my braving psychiatry in one brave moment in 1998 (and still thanking St. Agatha for the grace), or angry at me believing things like God's existence being real and the real foundation of the rest of reality. With implications favourable to Young Earth Creationism (sending a global flood and pulling down the Mariana Trench to drain waters isn't beyond His power) and to Geocentrism (turning the Universe around Earth each day isn't beyond His power).

Or do you really love covering up for Trent Horn pretending Cardinal Baronius defended Galileo in the 1616 process, when Galileo hadn't come into a certain debate much earlier than that and Baronius died in 1607 (I'd have guessed 1609, but OK)? If so, are you aware that you are siding with Romanian gipsies who think they are doing me a favour by "replacing" the mental institutions that currently don't try to hold me inside them? In 2000, I came out from a prison sentence (see the braving of psychiatry) involving transfer to Forensic psychiatry, with the assessment I was too disturbed to do prison, but not to be out in normal society, no diagnosis offered me in words, I was offered a numbered code after a ridiculous multiquestion test. In 2012, I tried to defend a girl who seemed to be held down in the intention of getting her to such places, and I was in psychiatry from Wednesday Our Lady's Assumption to the following Monday.

But Gipsies seem to have been handled by people they respect and consider as intellectuals, in the way that they see NOT keeping me back and treating me as a madman as sth akin to allowing me to become Hitler II or Nicolae Jetty Carpathia. Need I do the Silver Chair reference (I'm not comfortable with someone not having physically been in Narnia adressing Our Lord as Aslan in our world), or will you kindly cut the ropes anyway, even if that means disobeying the man you consider as Pope?

Cutting the ropes NOT meaning "cutting me off the internet" as if that were an addiction or prevented me from seeing reality, or a computer were the silver chair (object in the novel), BUT simply stopping to treat my writings as classified CIA secrets (or medical confidential information) and starting to treat me as a fellow writer, even if, not having a clean shirt every day (the shower I was counting on closed 15 h today), I can't be a speaker or youtuber.

---

It can also be noted, I fully endorse Mit brennender Sorge and hold Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts to be a banned book.

I am also as allergic as Connor Estelle against the somewhat similar ideology expressed in a book by Giovanni Gentile.

Francisco Franco did not persecute Jews or Gipsies. If anything, he was a bit eager for death penalties, but we all have our faults. As ex-Palmarian I obviously prefer the time when ex-war-criminals (in Franco's eyes and justifiably so) could serve three days of prison by one day of work at Canal del Sur and some of them settled in the region of Palmar de Troya. Some working for Valle de los Caidos were less lucky, and as precisely a Fascist, I deplore bad working conditions, including for prisoners, especially when resulting in mortal accidents.

---

It can also be noted, Gipsies have a huge tendency to require very modern and shallow gender stereotypes for seeing someone as heterosexual.

I tend to see Debate (even if it's just online) as a masculine thing. They seem to think writing is just for women or (clearly less good) men who identify as ...

I disagree. What could I do inside a Gipsy clan? Survive as a miserable group therapy was tried on me ...

Views on the Exodus

After presenting some 8 views, David A. Falk considered his "dance card" was full.

The Dance Card of Exodus Matches
Ancient Egypt and the Bible | 22 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp9NX1w5tN8

13:23 No, it isn't full.

While I have some doubts in possible favour* of Amenhotep II, what I have so far held is ...

1) Biblical chronology for the Christmas Day martyrology reading poses Exodus in 1510 BC (or 1511 ... anyway, the reading says Jesus was born 1510 after the Exodus).
2) The pharao of the Exodus would be 12th or 13th dynasty. Having Sesostris III as the child killing pharao who died when Moses was newly born and Moses himself as Amenemhet IV (who has a cenotaph) is a thing I take from an article by David Down, Searching for Moses, featured 2006 on the blog of CMI after being paper published in 2001 in Journal of Creation 15(1):53–57, April 2001.
3) I take the carbon date for Sesostris coffin (80 years before the Exodus) to be explained by 97.033 pmC, and the carbon date for Jericho's fall to be explained by 99.049 pmC in the atmosphere.
4) I didn't use to have a carbon date for the Exodus itself, but it dawned on me, some of the plagues could have involved volcanic matters from Santorini, meaning 1511 BC carbon dates as 1609 BC, hence 98.822 pmC.

Meanwhile, the SHORT chronology, Ramses, is considered perfectly Biblical by Jews. Why? Well, check the shortening of the "intertestamental era" to fit the weeks of Daniel to Bar Kokhba.

I obviously reject this view, to a very high degree, it presupposes a rejection of actual Biblical chronology between Daniel and Our Lord.

Ancient Egypt and the Bible

@ancientegyptandthebible

That's so unhistorical I don't even know where to start. The date of Senwosret III is nowhere near the fall (any fall) of the city of Jericho. Downs is not a reliable source. He is another Velikovsky crank.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@ancientegyptandthebible "That's so unhistorical I don't even know where to start."

As in Egyptian chronicles are even for the Second Intermediate period a good clue of chronology? I'm taking "unhistorical" as you take it on the side of historic sources.

Unlike Bourbon France which dated in Anno Domini, Egypt had a new epoch with each new pharao. There was no way to check if he lengthened or shortened the reign of a predecessor to honour or dishonour him.

"The date of Senwosret III is nowhere near the fall (any fall) of the city of Jericho."

For Jericho, we only have a carbon date.

The coffin is carbon dated to 1839 BC, raw date. Jericho to 1550. That's 300 years or rather 291, if we take the carbon dates at face value.

If however during this time carbon 14 rose from 97.033 pmC to 99.049 pmC in the atmosphere, this means that the extra years go down from 250 to just 80. (Appr., I'm using carbon 14 calculator instead of doing full calculation on the calculator).

What was your point again?

"Downs is not a reliable source."

Was Amenemhet IV succeeded by a person who could be his sister? Was he coregent with his (supposed) father Amenemhet III? Is his tomb a cenotaph? Is all of this period less well documented than the New Kingdom?

If the correct answer (which you know better than I, so I'm asking you) is yes, and I'd be surprised but open if you said no, I think that Downs has a point in argument and has thusly been a sufficient reliable source for my purposes.

---

* Supposing you find it favourable to be the pharao of Exodus ... it kind of pretty much isn't.

On Beowulf and Clergy

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: The Beowulf Poet Knew Homer · Other Characteristic of the Beowulf Poet: · The Monsters ARE The Critics · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: On Beowulf and Clergy · Was Tolkien Any Good as a Philologist?

Which Beowulf should YOU read? - Three Editions Compared
Gavin the Medievalist | 23 Aug 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-mWVY-xc54

How old is Beowulf?
Gavin the Medievalist | 30 Aug 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY2sLgDGq04

5:59 If the Beowulf poet's native language wasn't (Old) English, the linguistic argument could be somewhat moot, right?

Because, Apollonius of Rhodes didn't speak and Old Ionic two centuries younger than Homer, he spoke Koiné, and learned Homeric Greek as a foreign language.

So, if for instance ex-Patriarch Photius, once he had retired to a monastery, learned the English to write Beowulf, he could pretty easily have learned it from texts that were two hundred years older, and imitated them much more successfully than an actual Englishman, given that 200 years is pretty close in language development, and avoiding intereference from one's own contemporary language would have been harder.

Meanwhile, Photius' own version of Koiné Greek (some 1000 years after Apollonius, but very attached to models like LXX and NT in his class) would not have interfered at all ... except, he could have used an objective genitive, unaware that this didn't exist in Old English.

soðfaestra dom ... based on purely English models, a scholar has argued, the poet spoke of Beowulf's subjective hope to be judged by true and steady men in posterity.

If Greek was the underlying language, the poet could actually have been arguing against what is now known as Feeneyism: Beowulf (ultimately) died in the hope of receiving the judgement bequeathed on the true and the steady, i e, we hope he was saved.

Even if this would not painting Geats as being quite as much in danger of damnation for being non-Christians, a) the danger could have increased in the meantime, because of Odinism presumed to not have been as prevalent in Beowulf's lifetime, b) it did inspire St. Sigfrid (the time for the Beowulf manuscript is a very good match for when St. Sigfrid came to Sweden:

In his hagiography, Saint Sigfrid of Sweden is problematically described as having held the office of Archbishop of York.[48] It is possible basis that Sigeferð of Lindsey could have been elected to that office in the late Spring of 1002, following the death of Archbishop Ealdwulf, but because of a call to evangelize Sweden, resigned before enthronement, whereupon Wulfstan, Bishop of London, took his place at York. One seeks in vain for an Archbishop of York signing English royal charters in the summer of 1002)

[Above comment disappeared]

Is Tolkien's Beowulf ANY GOOD? A Review by a Medievalist
Gavin the Medievalist | 12 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN4QkyTmtqE

[Links to the three essays given, but disappeared]

7:48 I would say, in the Ludwigslied, you do find a pretty chivalric atmosphere.

It's from the 880's so, while well after the "700 — 750" date, well before the actual manuscript.

The Inklings were themselves sure that Beowulf as much as Homer and Virgil dealt with warriors of an essentially chivalric tradition.

Confer the knights of the ... Carolingian ... table (in Aachen). A few decades before Lewis III of France or of West-Francia, with whom the Ludwigslied deals ...

As Said, Candace Was Certainly Not Trying to Smudge Charlie's Name

Officer Tatum BREAKS His Silence on Candace Owens' Allegations on Charlie Kirk
Tamera Nealy | 19.IX.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96-YXBuVDKc

A certain pastor who had been that of Charlie Kirk went after Candace for "denigrating" his memory over saying he was going towards Catholic conversion.

You say she's "denigrating" his memory for going against the atrocities Israel does in Gaza and stating Charlie Kirk was withdrawing his previous support.

As becoming Catholic and not supporting what Israel does in Gaza (most of it) is not Candace Owen's "black" but her (and my) "white" ... it's pretty obvious that such a way of seing it totally misrepresents Candace Owens.

You may think she and I are wrong. You may think Charlie Kirk was wrong if he was joining us on those issues. You may think Candace Owens was wrong about Charlie Kirk. BUT you cannot pretend she would have thought Charlie Kirk joining us would be wrong.

Shoe had a good take (but I'm repeating myself)

These People are Sick
Shoe0nHead | 18 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJENP0Rr8p0

2:15 He did not advocate to stone gays.* A Lesbian quoted Leviticus 19 to him, he quipped with Leviticus 18 and added that was the old law. His point was not for stoning gays, but for not quoting the Bible out of context. Pretty much what some LGBTQ advocates do when arguing about shrimps, and we don't call them out for wanting to stone Danes for eating smørrebrød med pillede reger (reger meaning shrimps).

Even Stephen King has apologised for that one.

He also didn't say black women are too stupid to be pilots. He was commenting on them becoming pilots on DEI rules. A DEI policy says you can allow the fourth best applicant (or whatever) to get a job if the very best is white male and the fourth best is in a group where equity and diversity would warrant giving a pass. He may be wrong. But he arguably wasn't wrong about it with Lesbians in the LA fire department back in January, so, he had at least fresh news to back it up with.

The thinking is, good competence is scarce. The very best applicant is adequate, but hiring the fourth best instead is courting disaster. It's not that the black woman for being a black woman is stupid, it's that she could have been only the fourth best applicant. However, I would agree against DEI policies when it comes to making people policy makers albeit on subsidiary roles (LA Fire Department). Or when the marginalised group being recent immigrants they are applied on so many levels they court Great Replacement. (The main courting of GR is obviously childlessness and childscarcity among white indigenous people of the First World).

If the applicants for a job are 20 to 100 and even the tenth or fifthieth would be good enough, because those who aren't have the sense to not apply, or their teachers have the sense not to encourage them, hiring the fourth best is obviously not as disastrous a deal as some think.

7:14 She's so totally out of touch.**

11:21 If someone calls you a Fascist, feel free to quip they are confusing you with Connor Estelle, Nick Fuentes or myself.

13:30 Wait, you got called Fascist for calling out a certain company which may have apologised but put out really creepy material with small children?

I recall you said that, but not that someone called you Fascist for it ...

18:05 Rome stopped having a Republic when murdering Tiberius Gracchus led to Sylla's men murdering Marians, leading to Marius' men murdering Syllans ... leading to Catilina, leading to ... well, Caesar. Princeps senatus, but one who didn't always leave much job for the rest of the Senate.

Spain got a very bloody war from 1936 to 1939, with too little pardon for beaten adversaries after the war, over a murder culture. You know Calvo Sotelo was the fourth murder in a few months, in a Left-Right vendetta.

18:51 Workers rights, unions?

If on top of that you are against abortion, even more, against actual Communism (as expropriation of companies followed by collectivisation) you are actually a Fascist. I just reminded Casey Cole OFM when he said sth about "people want to fix homelessness, but won't pay taxes for cheap housing" ... that was actually one of Franco's policies.

And before you say "Nordic Socialism", actually Swedish Social Democrats did copy the programme of Nysvenskarne, a Fascist party which admired Il Duce and Perón, but not a certain man who should have remained a painter after hearing of certain camps. Or is it Nysvenskarna? Both plurals are valid in Swedish.

When Lyndon LaRouche called Olof Palme a Fascist, in economic policies, he wasn't wrong. Unfortunately, Palme wasn't pro-life.

* Shoe went on to make the point herself, after 2:15.

** Shoe happened to show a clip of someone saying so few could relate to Charlie, no one was going to consider him as a martyr. That girl, fortunately left anonymous has been proven very wrong, even into France and Germany. Shoe isn't very often out of touch herself.

Two Franciscans Presumably (or for one certainly) Against Death Penalty (Neither of them is For the Shooting)

Should We Kill Charlie Kirk's Assassin? (Fr. Boniface Hicks)
More Pints With Aquinas | 16 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS2eMVH-YLo

15:40 The law was not to kill her alone.

Now, this law was a civil law for Israel, later for Judah and Israel, an applied insofar as Judah had autonomous jurisdiction.

However, this is a prophecy in Genesis, namely 49:10 The sceptre shall not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he come that is to be sent, and he shall be the expectation of nations.

Now, Jesus had already come, so, Judah could have and actually had lost autonomy, after Archelaos:

Pilate therefore said to them: Take him you, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said to him: It is not lawful for us to put any man to death
[John 18:31]

In other words, before Pilate, Jews recognised they had lost the authority to mete out death penalty. Perhaps this applied only to men in the sense of males, though I doubt it, but if so, that would make the stoning of an adulteress only (without the adulterer) a "norm" that contrasted with the actual Mosaic norm for an independent Hebrew state.

I would say that He Who is without sin threw a stone on the first adulterer and first adulteress in the universe, Satan, and that stone was inscribed with Et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum. Et quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in caelis: et quodcumque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in caelis.

Probably the reason why the first Pope's new name was Peter.

He did not throw a stone on the woman, whom nobody could any more judge according to Jewish law.

We Need to Talk About Charlie Kirk
Breaking In The Habit | 19 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wsllpI3fpQ

["They literally don't know who the other is."]

3:01 You mean like between Tel Aviv and Gaza?

4:42 Actually, there is some unhinged hatred, when, a) a Lesbian argued against a CK position from Leviticus 19, b) CK reminded her of a thing in Leviticus 18 and c) Stephen King pretended CK wanted to stone LGBTQ people today.

On some parts, it's a question of unhinged credulity, being ready to believe any bad thing about CK. On some parts, it's a question of more, of actually wanting to distort or at least spontaneously distorting through one's filters what one hears the other person saying.

Not saying this is inexistent on the right, but (biassed as I am) I don't find it as prominent.

8:24 "Division is profitable"

Sounds a bit like the point a certain de La Tour du Pin was making against both Capitalism and Communism ... René, Count de La Tour du Pin.

By the way, did CK ever make that point too?

13:06 Whatever success rating you are giving CK, you are certainly for what he was at least trying to do.

Protests in Russia

Les Russes protestent enfin contre Poutine*
NFKRZ | 18 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKHFjO2T-Xw

* Presumably: Russians are Finally Protesting Putin.

The title was autotranslated, but the video is in English.

Tolkien and Hope

The Return of the King is a DARK Book
First Timers | 18 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOTuGGoQAG0

7:23 "and banners still streaming in the breeze"

I think Tolkien, unpatriotic from "a Brit" (or Englishman) as it may be, may have made an oblique reference to a 14th of September in 1814 when in the morning, the British ships had not taken down the barred and star spangled banner. I'll always recall actually understanding your National Hymn (you aren't Canadian, eh?) for the first time when hearing El pendón estrellado in a video recounting the history from the referenced occasion to the official translation into Spanish. Up to then, I had just taken it as random, jumbled, war imagery. Epics tell stories. Lyrics reflect on salient things, including salient aspects of stories ... but they are not always great explainers of the story they reflect on.

Tolkien would not have referred to himself as a Brit, to him Brits are the guys in Cardiff or that placename which counted in letters is the longest place name in the world.

7:42 "if only on one leg"

Reference to the Gaulish cock. As in, you know, rooster.

8:20 / 8:40 And "valley, where the grass is green" would seem to refer to Wales, via "How Green was my valley" by Richard Llewelyn (novel appeared 1939).

Tolkien would certainly have referred to Richard Llewelyn as a Brit ... or a Cymro.

[Other US Reference, Beacons of Gondor:

Ancient Military Communication System used during the American Revolution 🔥
All Revolutionary War, All The Time! | 20 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N60VnVF_afs ]

Avi Yemini defends Gaza Humanitarian Foundation

I ask a "counter"-question:

The TRUTH about Gaza humanitarian aid they DON’T want you to see
Avi Yemini | 18 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxlinq9FNow

1:39 Supposing this is the truth, why not invite the Flotilla to first deliver their aid, then take trucks to where you are standing?

2:21 why are they not doing it?

GHF challenged on funding and Gaza aid site killings
Channel 4 News | 14 Aug. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMJWckbcXxU

Trent Horn Exposes Salvation and Original Sin in an Excellent Fashion, But Less Excellent on Certain Sci-The Debates

DIALOGUE: Infant Baptism, Catholicism, and The Church of Christ
The Counsel of Trent | 28 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JnELgrWyZs

32:42 "it was human death" ... an answer strictly speaking not available to a Catholic

An Anglican or Lutheran or Presbyterian could cite, in support, this:

If so ye continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and immoveable from the hope of the gospel which you have heard, which is preached in all the creation that is under heaven, whereof I Paul am made a minister.
[Colossians 1:23]

But they would then be presupposing that the Gospel is only preached in human creatures.

If we as Catholics bless beasts, food, plants, objects and even minarals like salt, we point to this verse, we say "all creation" means all creation, and then it means that also in relation to death, and in relation to Mark 10:6, "from the beginning of creation" (no limitation of under heaven added here).

33:25 "it was human ..."

For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain, even till now
[Romans 8:22]

Here is Dom Augustin Calmet cited (and translated to English) by Father Haydock:

The creature, &c. The creatures expect with impatience, and hope with confidence, to see a happy change in their condition; they flatter themselves that they will be delivered from the captivity of sin, to which man has reduced them, and enter into the liberty of the glory of the sons of God. Not that the inanimate creation will really participate the happiness and glory of the elect; although in some sense they may be said to have part in it, since they will enter into a pure, incorruptible and perfect state to the end of ages. They will no longer be subject to those changes and vicissitudes which sin has brought upon them; nor will sinful man any longer abuse their beauty and goodness in offending the Creator of all. St. Ambrose and St. Jerome teach that the sun, moon, and stars will be then much more brilliant and beautiful than at present, no longer subject to those changes they at present suffer. Philo and Tertullian teach that the beasts of prey will then lay aside their ferocity, and venomous serpents their poisonous qualities. (Calmet)

So, it was also animal death, and especially (if we look at Sts Augustine and Bede arguing otherwise on previous) any wasteful and unnecessary suffering in connection to animal death.

34:33 Baronius was dead even before the first trial where Galileo was involved.

IF he said it, he was probably arguing for the licitness of replacing Ptolemy with Tychonian Geocentrism, Galileo was absolutely not a thing yet, while he lived, not in this debate.

We have the quote ONLY through Galileo, and no early source clearly saying it was Baronius he meant, here are the exact words of Galileo to archduchess Cristina:

Galileo writes: “It is clear from a churchman who has been elevated to a very eminent position that the Holy Spirit’s intention is to teach us how to go to Heaven, and not how the heavens go”*

My alternative theory is, it could very well have been a Cardinal Barberini, a friend of Galileo who at this time enjoyed conversations about the subject, but later as Pope Urban VIII took some responsibility about what Galileo was spreading (in fact, an error, in Bible, in the physics/metaphysics of natural philosophy, and in epistemology).

---

* As I quoted in:
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Was it Baronius and Did Galileo Recall His Words Accurately?
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2024/11/was-it-baronius-and-did-galileo-recall.html

Newman's Famous, Famous Essay, a Weak Spot in the Catholic Armour? (First Half of Video)

Did Newman Accidentally Refute Roman Catholicism?
Rev. Brandon Warr | 12 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMQIVtvw7yo

0:19 Will all Catholic bloviators please stand up?

Raising my hand ....

4:26 Clarified in your usage is, for all I know about that essay from 1845, Newman's "developed" ...

Rev. Brandon Warr

@RevBrandonWarr

It doesn't track with how Newman used it. He tried to backpedal on it, but we are not postmodernists. Ultimately, if any tradition can use Newman's points to justify its own continuity, then Newman is wrong about Rome.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@RevBrandonWarr I have nothing but your word for that.

Especially not my vague memories of his text.

Meanwhile, I'm taking a pause after 10:58 to tomorrow, it's 11:20 PM here, and I left comments between 4:26 and 10:58. If they came into your spam folder, please "unspam" so each point of mine can be debated. Not just a conveniently small number of them. I see two of my fourteen points only.

My answer

was taken away. I'll post this, with comments up to 10:58, Second half may be another time.

5:35 Quotemining. Could the quote in context have referred to change in verbal expression?

Here*, apart from going from St. Augustine's Latin, via his translator's English to French, I have actually changed the wording, adding a consideration which was not explicitly there:

Dans une note en bas de page, Vigouroux cite St. Augustine dans le latin pour le nombre d'hommes quand Caïn fonde la cité de Hénoch. Cité de Dieu, livre XV, chapitre 8. Pour le propos dans le titre, allons plutôt à l'argument du chapitre 16.

Je le résume ainsi, avec observations supplémentaires : — 1° l'inceste (entre frère et sœur) est abhorré comme posant une coalescence entre relations qui diminue le nombre de personnes avec qui on est dans une relation amicale. (Il ne parle même pas de toute un autre problème encore plus grave entre parent et progéniture, puisque ce n'est pas du tout dans le texte, Genèse 4 et 5 n'ai rién de la tragédie de Thèbes). Idéalement, donc, deux fonctions de relations doivent vous unir à deux personnes différentes. — 2° Mais la génération après Adam et Ève, il y avait juste deux fonctions qui coïncidèrent : père et beau-père, la relation d'Adam à Caïn et à sa femme (mère et belle-mère pour Ève) et à l'inverse fils et beau-fils pour Caïn, fille et belle-fille pour sa femme. Et ce n'était pas évitable. — 3° Par contre, la génération prochaine, c'était déjà évitable, on pouvait épouser une cousine germaine, et la coïncidence aurait été de trois relations : Caïn aurait été à la fois père et beau-père de Hénoch et encore l'oncle maternel aussi, si Hénoch avait épousé sa sœur; donc, si Hénoch a épousé une cousine, Caïn n'était que juste père et oncle, mais pas encore beau-père au-dessus du marché. — 4° Dès la génération d'Irad, c'était possible d'avoir Hénoch uniquement comme père, quelqu'un d'autre comme beaupère et quelqu'un d'autre comme oncle maternel. Depuis, on ne fait même pas coïncider deux relations. C'est à dire, licitement. — 5° Avant de répondre que l'affaire entre un frère et une sœur de nos jours ferait juste coïncider deux relations, puisque leur père et mère ne sont pas frère et sœur comme Adam et Ève ne l'étaient pas, les relations licitent doive se pouvoir répéter sans trop d'inconvénient, et là on aurait dans la génération suivante une coïncidance entre trois relations. Et ce qui est dit de Caïn, Hénoch, Irad doit s'entendre aussi de Seth, Énos, Caïnan.

Did I substantiallly change the position of St. Augustine on why brother-sister marriages are normally wrong, but weren't the first generation after Adam and Eve? Or have I just clarified?

I think the latter, and nevertheless, the wording is very different from the locus in City of God, XV:16.

5:44 In 1845, Newman was not speaking for the Catholic Church, so it was not the Church admitting, it was Newman presuming a change over time.

Note, he wrote the book before actually converting, and before actually even getting Catholic instruction before converting.

Why, you may ask ...?

Well, given the celebrity of Newman, Church authorities already such could figure out that people would attribute his defection from Anglicanism and adherence to Catholicism in terms of Ulterior motives (and not Ulsterior ones, but much more material than that!) ... the solution was to make him write a book which written when it was, showed his motives to convert as motives from within his previous Anglican position.

It's not the Catholic saying why he was right to convert, it's the Anglican saying why he was going to be right to convert.

I'd be very happy if Prevost (though I hold him to be anti-pope, pending evidence to the contrary, given his three predecessors) clarified that his canonisation of Newman's doctrine extends to works after 1845. In Idea of a Catholic University, in the section defining six meanings of history, he actually talks like a Fundie. And by then, he actually is a spokesman of the Catholic Church.

5:50 Supposing by developments he means what you call clarifications, I see nothing objectionable in the quote.

5:58 By the way, he does not say "profitable" but "probable" according to the text you have on the screen.

6:18 You are referring to a dictionary definition of "development" which is very summary, which presumably doesn't even cover the much more related concept of development section in a sonata, while Newman could easily have given the word a different meaning from you, closer to "development of an argument" or "development section of a sonata" ...

This sounds dangerously close to strawmanning Newman's position these few months prior to his conversion. Can we expect similar straw-Manning with other converts?

7:28 "as Newman himself admits"

Admitted a few months before his conversion.

I would say the NT textual case for the three doctrine areas (Mariology, Papacy, Veneration of Saints) is far better than Newman had up to 1845 learnt from studying as an Anglican, consulting Anglicans, using (much if not all of the time) Anglican methodology as it was in 1840 ...

That Newman felt he had to defend them by "development of doctrine" shows the weakness of Catholicism within Newman's up to then Anglican context, not the weakness of Catholicism as such.

1) All of the OT is typological and as such about Christ or diverse relations to Him, see Luke 24:27 (I think it was) (yep)
2) Jael is a type of Mary by "blessed among women" and Satan is the only candidate for Our Lady's Sisera (and Our Lady was given the title of Jael but generalised before being pregnant with Jesus).
3) Eliacim is a type of Peter, as per Matthew 16:19 echoing Isaias 22:22
4) Martyrs are a type of all who reign in Christ, during the Millennium, which you will concede is the Church Age, not after it, starting after AD 33, not after Armageddon, and Apoc. 6 shows us how they reign. Namely by prayers for the Church militant or against Her enemies. OT saints are types of NT saints, both Elisaeus and St. Paul show miracles being worked by their relics.

8:09 To be deep in history is to get out of Trail of Blood history.

Tondrakians and Paulicians are not early Protestants.

I'm reminded of the existence of red napkins being confirmations of all ravens being black, by being non-black non-ravens, and the objection "wouldn't the existence of non-red non-ravens prove all ravens are red" ... doesn't hold, since we already know from direct experience some ravens at least or even all we have knowledge of are black, none red.

In order to develop doctrine from a point in 1st C. AD to a point in 19th C. AD, you need to be actually around between 1st and 19th CC. AD. The "Baptist" Church of Trail of Blood clearly wasn't. It's as bad history as claiming Columbus proved what Washington Irving said he proved, earth being round, in the face of a flat earth consensus, which obviously didn't exist.

8:27 A pretty banal example of a necessity of verbal change could be given this way, and Newman's points make perfect sense.

In the 1st C (according to a convert priest's theory) all priests were called "episkopoi" while bishops were variously called "apostoloi, euangelistai, aggeloi, presbuteroi" and perhaps even add "prophetai" ... after the 1st C (according to same theory), one kept the office of bishop common to all categories, but did not keep all the categories, so suddenly needed a common term, and found one in Acts one et episcopatum ejus accipiat alter given the twelve were the original bishops, whereafter the term "presbuteros" was transferred to the lower degree, to simple priests.

Obviously I'm not sure whether this is the correct explanation, it's that priest's opinion, not dogma, but if it is, it would exemplify a necessity of verbal change within doctrinal continuity. And the doctrinal continuity would be perfect, there would just be an impoverishment in disciplinary categories.

8:42 Come on ... he was in a mental quandary after being taught for decades there is no explicit support for Mary's sinlessness in the NT, he did the best he could before he had Catholic instruction to enlighten him, and you treat his words as if they were the be all end all of Catholicism.

Plus you are still doing a straw-Manning of him, as presumably with Manning if you treat him (or perhaps not, perhaps Manning actually was less good doctrinally) by pitting "development" and "change" against "clarification" ...

9:55 It may have left the Roman magisterium at an awkward position in 1845, but very arguably in a less awkward one than the Protestantism of 1845.

And either of these entities as measured in Newman's then imperfectly enlightened mind.

10:37 That word doesn't mean what you think it means.**

And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus 16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work
[2 Timothy 3:15-17]

St. Tim was actually well trained, not a person approaching the texts for the first time, even so they only became this sufficient thing for him (or any other "man of God", terminus technicus not coextensive with "faithful") by a thing added to the texts in question, after he had been trained in them, namely "the faith which is in Christ Jesus" ...

You're strawmanning St. Paul as much as you are strawmanning Newman.

10:58 This contrasts with Trent Session IV, right?

• all 73 books
• as held in the past and present by the Church (if the definition had just hit the present, the Council Fathers could have opened a door to Reformation, in many Lutheran countries, Lutheranism was by then held by all clergy, since Catholic clergy had already been killed or exiled)
• and as held by Church Fathers in consensus

Now, how could you distinguish the Concord formula from this using Scripture and how would Scripture not favour Trent IV over Concord, esp. given Matthew 28:20?

* Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Certains ont une horreur de l'idée que Caïn et Seth aient épousé chacun une des sœurs
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2025/09/certains-ont-une-horreur-de-lidee-que.html
** Can I, pretty please, make an Inigo Montoya reference in revenge for his Sandler skits, adding a perspective that simply isn't there in the words?